Re: [IFWP] A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age

Jay Fenello a écrit: > > Who is the ICANN Chairman, and what > has she done with Esther Dyson ;-) Oh, no!...It couldn't be...Do you think?...They're comingThey're here!...THE BODY SNATCHERS!!!

Re: [IFWP] Re Robert Connelly and CORE

Very well thought out and worded letter Michael. Hopefully it won't go unnoticed. On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:17:42 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dear Senator Reid, > >Mr. Robert Connelly, a member of CORE, wrote to you recently >claiming that ICANN, the organization poised to t

[IFWP] Re Robert Connelly and CORE

Dear Senator Reid, Mr. Robert Connelly, a member of CORE, wrote to you recently claiming that ICANN, the organization poised to take over control of the Internet infrastructure, is a benign and community consensus-founded entity whose only opposition comes from Network Solutions, Inc., the compan

Re: [IFWP] Re: fu**-you.com

Someone drew my attention to the same clause in NSI's dispute policy. Isn't ANY registrar willing to simply agree not to revoke a domain registration without cause? On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:58:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:58:19 -0400, domainiac <[E

[IFWP] Re: fu**-you.com

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:58:19 -0400, domainiac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Was it you or somebody else who put together a web page that does whois >>queries to the proper registrar? > >>If so, or whoever it was, does it work with whois.corenic.net ok? I'm >having >>some wierd problem with it that

Re: [IFWP] RE: (INTA) NSI WHOIS limits

At 05:01 PM 7/12/99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: >Under current United States law, it is highly doubtful that collection by >registrars of this factual information gives rise to any enforceable >intellectual property rights. Under Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural >Telephone Service Co., 499

[IFWP] Thank you, Jonathan

  Jon, I greatly appreciate your active and gentlemanly participation in this and other lists.  As always, it is difficult to discuss significant issues without our various differences becoming (or appearing) personal rather than substantive.  You have cleved to the higher ground.   And, while so

[IFWP] ICANN in the news:

As the registry industry matures, ICANN, as stewards of the US Government controlled or "legacy" root zone is, I'm told, making an effort to increase outreach. Will ICANN be using the usenet newsgroups to do this ? >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PR

Re: [IFWP] istf

Richard and all, How sweet! As though MCI was widely considered a "Socially Responsible" company! Sheeesh! Give me a break Duh-on Heath! Richard J. Sexton wrote: > @@@ http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/ > > "One final initiative was covered separately because of its importance to > the futu

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Ken Stubbs" ]

>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from ["Ken Stubbs" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:55:35 -0400 (EDT) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon

[IFWP] geneva.ifwp.org no longer working

It seems that the site is no longer accessible, so the Berkman Center has posted on the portion of the content previously hosted on that server that was created by Berkman staff. If anyone has other files from th

[IFWP] RE: (INTA) NSI WHOIS limits

Further to recent discussions on these lists regarding ownership of data contained in the whois database of domain names, reprinted below is ICANN's comments on this issue made in response to questions asked by Rep. Bliley (R- VA), Chairman of the US House Commerce Committee. All of ICANN's respo

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

Mark C. Langston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (re the problem of accessing the RealServer from behind a firewall) > While I may be the only > one complaining at this point, I find it hard to imagine that this > will always be the case, and I would think that making things as easy > to access as pos

[IFWP] IP Constituency's "Transfer Protocol" Recomendation was:Re: Message for Ted Shapio

Russ and all, Your example Russ is a good case in point that is tragically not provided for in this "Transfer Protocol" Recommendation adequately. It should also be noted that AOL, is one of the ICANN's "Test Bed" Registrars as well... Given that, it is not too difficult to extrapolate that

[IFWP] Re: [ga] General comments on the agenda - The pNC inadaquate??

Michael and all, I and the [INEGroup] agree with Professor Fromkin's comments/remarks here entirely and we have stated so publicly to this list on two occasions over two weeks ago, as well as individually to all of the members of the pNC. We [INEGroup] received no response from the pNC in this

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

On 12 July 1999, "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark C. Langston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If there is/was a mechanism for active participation/input to this >> teleconference, I'm unaware of it. > >I believe there was no remote participation today because there NC was not >meet

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

Mark and all, I compleatly agree with Marks statement here... Others should chime in on this! Mark C. Langston wrote: > Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council > teleconf., I'll state this here, since it's currently being debated: > > If they expect any feeling of leg

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

Mark C. Langston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there is/was a mechanism for active participation/input to this > teleconference, I'm unaware of it. I believe there was no remote participation today because there NC was not meeting in a single room, so the traditional means of remote participat

[IFWP] IP constituency "Transfer Protocol" recomendation

IDNO'ers, I thought this would be of EXTREME interest to your members... You might want to review this VERY carefully... Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group.

Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what

Joe and all, Oh thank you joe for this obviously politically motivated response to Chucks comments. It strikes me that as both somewhat disingenuous and ironic given the PR enhanced "ICANN Announcements" that have been "Shared" (Sarcasm) with us all... Joe Sims wrote: > If the reason that NS

[IFWP] Update on membership of the NCDNHC

All, I thought that some others that are not on the NCDNHC mailing list would find this interesting and may have some comment to it. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network

[IFWP] Re: [ga] Letter from Mike Roberts re: gTLD Constituency Group

Chuck and all, I don't believe that John really means that, but I do believe that ICANN does in many situations or ICANN wishes to FORCE NSI and other root operators into a contractual agreement in which there is no negotiational flexibility, which is contract to standard practice in these sort

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

On 12 July 1999, Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council >> teleconf. > >Are they really being so stupid as to hold yet another closed meeting? If there is/was a mechanism for active participation/input to this teleconfer

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

>Are they really being so stupid as to hold yet another closed meeting? Yup. They mae a couple of insinuations about NSI and Ambler and had the obligatory comments about the DNSO mailing list not working. Same old same old. I turned it off. I know what Javier and Amadau sound like... -- Richard

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

> Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council > teleconf. Are they really being so stupid as to hold yet another closed meeting? Of course that would be a violation of the ICANN bylaws that require open meetings "to the maximum extent". There is *NOTHING* that they can be

[IFWP] istf

@@@ http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/ "One final initiative was covered separately because of its importance to the future direction of the Internet Society. This is the Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF). Dr. Vinton G. Cerf has agreed to chair the new ISTF and has invited all interested parties

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from ["Ken Stubbs" ]

nt-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 > >The Berkman Center has arra

Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council teleconf., I'll state this here, since it's currently being debated: If they expect any feeling of legitimacy whatsoever from the GA regarding the WGs, it would be in the pDNC's best interest if you let the WGs choose their OWN

[IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast

Today's DNSO Names Council teleconference is now taking place, available via RealAudio at . Archives will be available immediately after the conclusion of the teleconference. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School

Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Letter from Mike Roberts re: gTLD Constituency Group

On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 16:24:35 -0700, Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 06:59 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >>This wasn't directed towards me but I will put my comments in anyway. >> >>You have it straight. This situation is okay because NSI's function is to >>perform a task under specific

RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what

What is your definition of speculation? Chuck -Original Message- From: Bill Lovell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 8:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what At 07:54 PM 7/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >Bill

RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what

If the reason that NSI can only support a limited number of new competitive registrars is a resource problem, one possible solution that would help to increase competition (which I know you are on record as favoring) would be to redirect some of your resources that are currently allocated to m